Re: [anti-spam-wg] Proposed New Charter

[Dave Crocker dhc@localhost]

Brian,

Brian Nisbet wrote:
> I can see your point, but we are, at least initially, attempting not
> to set down incredibly strict limits on what we're looking at.  SMTP
> abuse (in all its forms) will be a large part of what the group will
> be concerned about, but it's also intended to cover the areas you've
> touched on below as well as things like botnets (the creation and use
> of,) and, indeed, types of abuse of which we are not now aware.  This
> last is equally tricky, but I think we need to consider that the pace
> change has not slowed of late and we could well be looking at new and
> different abuse vectors over the next few years (months?!).
>
> Hence my wish to try and outline broader areas we weren't going to
> concern the WG with, rather than detailing all the areas that would
> be important.
I didn't really mean to suggest "limits" as much as "clarifications".  I 
believe that an outside reader will not know what "network level abuse" means, 
no matter what their background is.  As a single-sample data point, I was/am 
offering myself...
So I was really intending only to look for language that would be more helpful 
for understanding, rather than being restrictive on the group's choices.
Thinking a bit about your last paragraph, above, it seems that keeping 
examples of what is out of scope would also be helpful.
Anyhow, all of this is merely early morning heckling from a distant sideline...

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net